“A
return to first principles in a republic is sometimes caused by the
simple virtues of one man. His good example has such an influence
that the good men strive to imitate him, and the wicked are ashamed
to lead a life so contrary to his example.”
“There
are three kinds of intelligence: one kind understands things for
itself, the other appreciates what others can understand, the third
understands neither for itself nor through others. This first kind is
excellent, the second good, and the third kind useless.”
“There
is no surer sign of decay in a country than to see the rites of
religion held in contempt.”
“It
is necessary for him who lays out a state and arranges laws for it to
presuppose that all men are evil and that they are always going to
act according to the wickedness of their spirits whenever they have
free scope.”
excellent!
ReplyDeleteDeborah, it is a shame that Machiavelli has such a bad reputation (via The Prince) as he was passionate about republics (these are all from The Discourses, which a book reviewing the first 10 books of Livy on the history of Rome and why it succeeded as a republic prior to Caesar). I have order his The Art of War and am looking forward to it.
ReplyDeleteIt is becoming my conviction that it is impossible to to have an ethical democratic republic that is multi cultural. That, and that modern liberalism and ethics are mutually exclusive properties. Morals and ethics can survive and thrive in religion but they inevitably collapse in liberal societies.
ReplyDeleteOh... and a belated Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, TB!
ReplyDeleteGlen, I have argued for some years now that democratic or republican (small case both times) forms of government cannot exist in multi-diverse societies simply because there is no common understanding of what it is to be "us" versus "not-us". The society becomes very fragmented (as does it politics) as each group jostles for the best position of its values and concerns. A world of small republics would have its own issues (see Italy in the Middle Ages and Renaissance) but working actively against the best interests of the state is generally not one of them (except those that seek to rule themselves, which all states are prone to).
ReplyDeleteAs to your second point, history tends to show that the state, if it does not allow religion to thrive, becomes the religion of the state. The state can have no challengers for power.
And a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours as well!